(Before you read this sermon transcript, keep in mind that I don't stick to the manuscript when I preach and therefore those who heard the sermon heard something at least a little different than what you're reading...if you really want to be impacted by these sermons, you need to be there with our church family and travel together with us as we submit to the Scriptures together. Christianity is not a path to be walked alone; in fact, unless you're on a deserted island with no way off and no way to be with others, it is unfaithful NOT to be in a worshiping community. But enough of that. The following is the sermon).

Sermon from September 7th, 2008

"The Difference between Disciples and Admirers Week 2"

Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. (own people) On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. (others) But when they arrest you (not if, when), do not worry about what to say or how to say it.

Continue with two ways discussion: passivism and violent agitation

- Persons have used this distinction for thousands of years now as they dealt with life and governments in power over them, saying, "We must either be passive and do our job, try to make ends meet, provide for our families, or we must take up arms in violent revolution." This belief in only two options hasn't ALWAYS been the case, but it has OFTEN been the case in human thinking.

People continued this distinction in considering Jesus as well. He HAD to be one or the other. There's no option other than the two. So which one is he? So they read the gospels and could see very early on that Jesus taught a way of peace, right? So that MUST mean that he wanted everyone to be passive, because he HAD to be either violent or passive. "But being passive means that people will run all over you and never be confronted with their injustice," people would think. "And that doesn't make sense," they thought. So in an underhanded, weaselly way, persons tried to find a way to justify disobeying Jesus, and came up with the conclusion, "Jesus was focused only on personal relationships." You hear that a lot from folks. And if we look into Jesus’ teaching, we can find some sections where that seems to be true; where if someone asks for your cloak, you give them your tunic, or “do not commit adultery,” “do not resist an evil person,” all of these seem to be focused on personal relationships. So Jesus was only talking about personal relationships…


- But Jesus also told his disciples “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.” That might sound like a personal relationship thing, but we must keep in mind Jesus was speaking to a people occupied by the Roman Empire, where soldiers of the Empire could demand that the Jews carry their pack for a mile. In essence, here, Jesus is saying, “They think they have power over you because of their position. You show them their power is basically meaningless to you and go two miles to show your freedom.” This would have been shocking to the Roman soldiers if the Jewish people did this, and went above personal relationships to how they interact with the pagan Roman Empire.

- Jesus also told his disciples “Do not swear an oath at all.” And in a Roman Empire where the citizens of the empire swore their obedience to the government and the good of the Empire above other commitments, this would have led to terrible consequences. When his followers came before judges and governors and refused to swear an oath, they would be seen as treasonous, and likely lose their lives. This teaching also goes beyond personal relationships.

There’s two big episodes in the gospel of Matthew where Jesus gets to show the people that he doesn’t fit either of their categories of who the Messiah was, and what he came to accomplish.

In Matthew 17:24 ff, Peter is approached by the collectors of the temple tax. Officials of the Jewish puppet king Herod, trying to pay for the cost of the temple that he had built. They ask Peter, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?” Essentially, they’re saying, “Doesn’t Jesus recognize the proper order of society?”

Why would these persons ask Peter this if everyone knew that Jesus was just talking about personal relationships? Of course Jesus would have paid the temple tax, like other obedient people. These officials are thinking, “If common persons don’t pay this tax, then order will fall apart in our society, if they don’t blindly obey us, then our rule is threatened.

Peter answers them, then Jesus challenges him with a mysterious question; “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes- from their own children or from others?” Peter answers, “From others,” and Jesus responds, “Then the children are exempt.” And then he shows his greater power here by saying, essentially, “But these people want their due. Listen, go to the lake, throw out your line, catch a fish, the first fish will have a four drachma coin. Give it to them.” While they are giving them what they’re asking for, Jesus shows the disciples the greater power they are responsible to. Not the officials, but God alone.

Essentially, Jesus is saying here, “Don’t raise a ruckus just to raise a ruckus with the people who govern you. But know where your allegiance lies.” You may not be convinced with my interpretation of this passage, but I’d like to show you how it sketches out some boundaries for the disciples and Jesus colors in the middle later.

Turn with me to Matthew 22, verse 15. Here we have a classic confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees. When we think of the Pharisees, we typically think “self-righteous,” and that was true to a point; maybe that’s the personal relationship side of the Pharisees. But, as we’ve talked about in the recent past here, the Pharisees identified very deeply with the Zealots in their society. They were working behind the scenes to undercut the Roman rule through violent acts of terrorism.

So they come to Jesus here and hope to trap him in his words. Now notice in verse 16 that they sent their disciples to him along with who? (the Herodians) If you remember what we’ve explored here in Matthew in the past, who were the Herodians and what did they care about? (Jewish ruling party, get their name from King Herod, who only had the power that the Romans gave him. If they didn’t like him, they would have killed him and put another King in his place. So Herod went out of his way to show the Romans that he would obey them. Those who followed him then were the ones who said, “We can swear an oath before the Romans to survive, but it doesn’t mean anything because we don’t mean it in our hearts.”

The Herodians were anxious about revolutionaries because then they couldn’t continue to be rich and profit off their own people, and the Pharisees loved the Zealots, the violent revolutionaries, because they hated Roman rule. Do you see the pickle they’re trying to get Jesus in? It’s a Catch-22. Jesus are you passive or are you a revolutionary?

And they ask, “Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity and you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. (buttering him up, but it’s also a sign of respect; Jesus doesn’t bow down for people who claim to be important. He treats everyone the same) “Tell us then,” they say, “what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”

Jesus, knowing their evil intent, spoke. But before we look at what he said, let’s consider the situation here. Knowing that the Herodians went out of their way to show the Romans that they weren’t a threat, knowing that they were the rich in the society and they didn’t want to lose their wealth, what would be their answer to this question? (Yes) If Jesus said “No,” then they would see him as a revolutionary, a threat to their wealth and power, and they would need to eliminate him.

Knowing that the Pharisees went out of their way to listen to and collude with the Zealots, knowing that they were agitating for revolution, what would be their answer to this question? (No) If Jesus said “Yes,” then they would see him as a Roman sympathizer, a threat to their desire for violent revolution, and they would need to eliminate him. So if Jesus answers either “Yes” or “No,” people will shove him into a certain category; he’s passive and needs to be killed, or he’s a threat to our wealth and needs to be killed.

Jesus’ response is classic. He said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

In essence, Jesus is saying, “So Caesar’s powerful enough to have some metal with his name on it, huh? Give him back what is he thinks is his. But Caesar doesn’t own our loyalty. That belongs to God alone.”

Now, I want you to understand the importance of what Jesus is saying here. By telling the people to give Caesar what is his, he is disagreeing with the Zealots that they should never ever ever cooperate with the Romans. Don’t create a riot just for the sake of a riot, Jesus is saying.

But at the same time, Jesus is rejecting Caesar’s claim to be King because only the LORD can occupy that place. To the Romans, Jesus would have been considered a threat to their rule, because their rule was based on blind allegiance.

What I’m saying is that Jesus was being presented with two different options, the violent revolution or being passive, and he rejected both of them. The entirety of Jesus’ ministry was about showing a third way, a different way, for God’s people to live.

This third way is one that rejected violent revolution but refused to give their loyalty to the Romans.

Nero At time of early church. The Roman emperor was believed by citizens to be the Son of God, sent to earth to bring peace and prosperity. Had two terms he wanted to be referred to by. These are both Greek words, the language of the empire, and the first is “kurios.” (LORD) This is the central term Nero wanted to be referred to as, and the way you showed your allegiance to the Roman Empire was confessing Nero as LORD.

The second term is “soter.” Anyone want to take a wild guess at what that means? (SAVIOR)

The Roman emperor was referred to by the masses as “our LORD and SAVIOR.” Ever heard those words before? Caesar gives test of loyalty by officials saying, “Caesar is LORD and SAVIOR. Bow down and acknowledge me as LORD and SAVIOR.” And if you didn’t bow down, guess what happened to you? (CRUCIFIED)

Now, we may not have been aware of this before, but, knowing that Caesar demanded that the people call him "LORD and SAVIOR," it now brings to our attention today how deeply subversive and dangerous it was for the early Christians to call Jesus "LORD and SAVIOR." What that means, essentially, is if Jesus is LORD and SAVIOR, then Caesar is not. Or, if Caesar is LORD and SAVIOR, then Jesus is not. I would encourage you to skim through the New Testament this week, keeping your eyes open for the terms "LORD" or "Savior." Each time these words were uttered, they were deeply dangerous for the author or speaker in an empire that didn't tolerate persons who refused to blindly obey.

(this was the end of our time together, and as you might guess...it doesn't wrap up neat and tidy. That's true, for two reasons. First, we ran out of time and I didn't want to keep people too long (we were ten minutes over even ending here). This was the major reason. But second, life isn't a present with a tidy bow making things all clean and easy; and this teaching of Jesus certainly isn't a neat little package. It demands that we go further than easy answers, and it calls for courageous persons willing to do the hard work of thinking and acting in ways very contrary to the persons around them. This will result in tensions within friendships, people ending friendships with them, talking behind their backs, maybe even disowning them, physically hurting them, or even killing them. Heck, I know of persons who have turned their back on me because of a difference in what we believe, but that shouldn't stop the pursuit of truth).